The Karzai Problem
| Tue Oct. 13, 2009 9:49 PM PDT
I'm not usually especially smitten with Tom Friedman's musings on war and nation building, but he's on the right page here:
I understand the huge stakes in stabilizing Afghanistan and Pakistan. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, our top commander there who is asking for thousands more troops, is not wrong when he says a lot of bad things would flow from losing Afghanistan to the Taliban. But I keep asking myself: How do we succeed with such a tainted government as our partner?
....I am not sure Washington fully understands just how much the Taliban-led insurgency is increasingly an insurrection against the behavior of the Karzai government — not against the religion or civilization of its international partners. And too many Afghan people now blame us for installing and maintaining this government.
....We have been way too polite, and too worried about looking like a colonial power, in dealing with Karzai. I would not add a single soldier there before this guy, if he does win the presidency, takes visible steps to clean up his government in ways that would be respected by the Afghan people.
If Karzai says no, then there is only one answer: “You’re on your own, pal. Have a nice life with the Taliban. We can’t and will not put more American blood and treasure behind a government that behaves like a Mafia family. If you don’t think we will leave — watch this.” (Cue the helicopters.)
If Obama and McChrystal can come up with a truly plausible plan for stabilizing Afghanistan, I think I could gulp hard and support it. But the absolute bare minimum requirement for such a plan is a national government that's largely supported by the population. Like Friedman says, it doesn't have to be Switzerland, but it has to be good enough. Without that, Afghanistan really is Vietnam 2.0.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Karzai
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 11:22 PM PDT.
But Karzai was parachuted in by the US govt in the first place, as I recall, when the first choice for comprador was assassinated just prior to the initial invasion/expulsion of Mullah Omar. What makes you think the choice behind door three would be any better or more acceptable to the Afghans? It is after all their country... and they don't seem to like foreigners or their flunkies for some reason. Nothing good will ever come of this adventure, nothing.
There's certainly no guarantee that whatever's behind door number three would be any more effective (or even any less corrupt) than Karzai's government. But it would be a significant, and positive, difference if this nameless administration were the result of a clean election. This isn't the case with Karzai's administration, and that's why his continued rule presents such a problem for Afghans -- and for our continued involvement (as if there weren't enough problems with that idea in the first place).
Of course, we face a similar issue in Iraq
Submitted by idlemind on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 11:40 PM PDT.
Yet somehow, we're slowly pulling ourself loose. The difference is that Iraq actually was a somewhat functional state in the not-so-distant past. Afghanistan on the other hand doesn't have that history. We either need to go full-hog into nation-building, with all the colonialist baggage that comes with it, or back away and confine ourselves to limiting the Taliban to a purely regional phenomenon. The former just isn't feasible (or even possible). So we may be stuck doing what we're currently doing in Pakistan -- disrupting the Taliban leadership whenever they get organized enough to be an external threat.
Why should we care about the Taliban?
Submitted by leafsong1 (not verified) on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 7:03 AM PDT.
We should not lose sight of the fact that we long ago lost sight of the reason why we were in Afghanistan. Terrorism is a red herring. 9/11's ties to Al Qaida are debateable. Al Qaida's ties to the Taliban are arguable. The US's right to invade Afghanistan in retaliation for the Taliban's ties to Al Qaida is clearly non-existent even if those ties and Al Qaida's ties to 9/11 could be proved. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that OBL was more responsible for 9/11 than Dick Cheney, or that the Afghan government was more responsible than the American one for those attacks. The Afghan war was entirely useless, worthless, and unjustified in the first place. It is humiliating for Americans to watch their country, the most powerful on the face of the Earth, cravenly claiming that they need to invade and brutally occupy one of the weakest nations in self defense. Home of the brave, my ass. Those who advocate tactical changes as a solution are simply idiots who totally miss the point.
Well if He can support
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 12:31 AM PDT.
Well if He can support Zelaya, why not support Karzai?
(Why are we supporting Zelaya?)
Afghanistan
Submitted by rbe1 (not verified) on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 4:06 AM PDT.
Afghanistan, graveyard of empires.
Vietnam 2.0
Submitted by steve duncan on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 4:34 AM PDT.
Afghanistan was Vietnam 2.0 the day it was sketched out on the drawing board.
Tom's Brain Is Fried
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 5:01 AM PDT.
Friedman may be on the right page, but he still isn't paying attention, which makes his advice as ignorant and dangerous as ever. We entered Afghanistan without being clear as to why we were there. We need to be clear about why we must leave. To assert that Karzai alone is the problem is to refuse to think or care.
As noted by my fellow Anonymous at the top, Karzai is our boy. Any insurrection against the Karzai "government" is an insurrection against us, too: his bankrollers, his protectors, his enforcers. We can't defend our actions by claiming that he made us do it, even if the claim is true. We are integral to the monster that we have created and it cannot survive without us. The people who are closest to it--on the outside, not on the inside--see our prominent, proactive role quite clearly.
Ultimatums like that
Submitted by Wagster on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 6:14 AM PDT.
Are for pundits too fond of dramatic gestures. If you're going to make a threat like that, you have to be willing to back it up with action. A complete withdrawal is beyond the Biden position even. Are we really willing to let the Taliban take over Afghanistan, and all that would mean for Pakistani stability?
What the Israelis say about the Iranians, that they are religious fanatics who don't care about their own survival, is not really true about them. But it is true about the Taliban. Remember, they chose annihilation by the greatest military power on earth, and possibly their personal deaths, rather than give up Osama. I don't want them anywhere near the Pakistani bombs.
the taliban
Submitted by flubber on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 4:06 PM PDT.
The Taliban did offer to turn over OBL to the US. Who knows if they would follow through with it, or if they had the capability. (I think they would have, and they did).
Bush lied, over and over again, aided by the neocon propagandists. The NYT printed his fact-free assertions, again and again, without refutation. (It took little insight, and not much background to see through the lies, so dishonest schmucks like the NYT knew what they were doing). From the AEI necons on the right, to thumbsucking liberal hawks like Friedman, Brookings, etc. on the left, the truth was outside the bracketed conversation.
Friedman is actually making the case to stay
Submitted by leafsong1 (not verified) on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 6:51 AM PDT.
He implies that the US did not install Karzai as a puppet. He implies that the sophisticatedly corrupt US government gives a crap how crudely corrupt their client is. He implies that a possible response is withdrawal, when history demonstrates that if we abandon Karzai, it will be to a friendly military dictatorship, and not to the Taliban. Just because opponents of the war point to Karzai's corruption as a reason to leave does not mean that neocon sympathizers won't point to the same incontravertible fact to support continued occupation.
Good points, all, except the
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 7:01 AM PDT.
Good points, all, except the last one. Surely we can do better than Karzai. But. Can we just say it once and for all: NOTHING at all is ever going to be "Vietnam 2.0". Just because it has an unpopular government does not make A'stan into 'Nam. The time is different, our enemies are different, the stakes are different, etc etc etc etc. Can we please drop this one lame cliche for good?
civilian steaks grace McChrystal's table
Submitted by tpx on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 7:39 AM PDT.
The variables that make Afghanistan resemble Vietnam are the US military occupation, the civilians killed by that occupation and the rationales Americans fabricate to justify the occupation.
Afghanistan is Vietnam 2.0
Submitted by leafsong1 (not verified) on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 7:17 AM PDT.
Afghanistan, like Vietnam, is a war of colonial conquest accurately perceived as such by its victims but inaccurately perceived as a defensive police action by large segments of the American public in accordance with government propaganda. Afghanistan, like Vietnam, is a country with a long and successful history of rebelling against foreign occupation. Afghanistan, like Vietnam, is a country with very strong defensive terrain which gives a large advantage to indigenous insurgents. Afghanistan, like Vietnam, is ruled py a puppet regime closely identified with the foreign occupiers. The time difference is unimportant; both conflicts occurred in the age of the AK47, the age where individual soldiers with large numbers of mass-produced assault weapons have the technological capability to deal effectively with the most well-armed forces. The enemy difference is insignificant; Mujahedeen and Viet Cong are comparable foes; though it hasn't received much publicity yet, China, Pakistan, and other countries are providing the Taliban with tangible resources. The stakes are about the same: control of a resource-poor but strategically useful territory.
McChrystal is more corrupt than Karzai
Submitted by tpx on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 7:22 AM PDT.
How do we succeed with such a tainted US military?
To Anon
Submitted by steve duncan on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 7:24 AM PDT.
The Nam comparison is meant to be a loose one and I understand unwillingness by some to use it. Whatever the differences for those of us that lived during the 60's costly, bloody, poorly planned and executed, seemingly pointless hostilities evoke painful memories. Equating current costly, bloody, poorly planned and executed, seemingly pointless hostilities with those from the past isn't entirely invalid or without merit.
Leaving
Submitted by steve duncan on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 1:23 PM PDT.
"If you don’t think we will leave — watch this.” (Cue the helicopters.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Last I read an orderly withdrawal involving the return of needed or usable ordnance along with soldiers would require a time frame as expressed in years. Not days or months. Years. Not exactly the same as slamming the door in a snit and screaming "F**k you!" as you trudge down the driveway.
Withdrawal from Afghanistan could be accomplished in six weeks
Submitted by leafsong1 (not verified) on Thu Oct. 15, 2009 6:58 AM PDT.
Iraq could take less than three. Of course, if we decide to rip up every military base and remove all equipment, it sould take a lot longer. But since we had no right to invade in the first place and are very unlikely to pay reparations, leaving behind all our stuff would be a good thing. All we really need to do is get our soldiers out.
???
Submitted by steve duncan on Thu Oct. 15, 2009 8:34 AM PDT.
Why yes, there probably isn't anything over there we'd be concerned over falling into someone's hands. Secret weapon technology. Sensitive/top secret files and records. Advanced radar, satellite and communication equipment. Depleted uranium munitions. Yeah, we'll just be happy to have our soldiers and the clothes on their backs return home. It's not as if there's anything we'd abandon al Qaeda or the Taliban would be interested in. Sounds like a plan..........
high tech entertainment
Submitted by tpx on Thu Oct. 15, 2009 9:47 AM PDT.
Why would the US require all of that high tech weaponry to subdue an underdeveloped nation's population? The actual invasion lasted only a few weeks. The Iraqi insurgents had no air force or any other sophisticated weaponry, so the advanced radar and other equipment had no useful purpose for the occupation. It also has no useful purpose increasing the living standards of Americans. The white phosphorus bombs did have a purpose though, to incinerate unarmed civilians alive for the entertainment of the folks back home.
Ummm
Submitted by steve duncan on Thu Oct. 15, 2009 10:04 AM PDT.
You're resorting to sarcasm to address a legitimate issue. Sort of like Bush saying to the CIA analyst during his pre-9/11 briefing "All right. You've covered your ass, now." Funny stuff all.
hang the generals
Submitted by tpx on Thu Oct. 15, 2009 11:18 AM PDT.
I am not being sarcastic. If the weaponry is too dear to be left in Iraq it, should never have been brought to Iraq. If it was brought to Iraq, it was only to be the play things of the generals to confront a poorly armed insurgency and for the oppression of an impoverished population. I am beyond sarcasm when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan. I want the generals hanged for war crimes and I want Americans to be severely punished for allowing the invasions and occupations.
war crime
Submitted by steve duncan on Thu Oct. 15, 2009 11:25 AM PDT.
No one is going to hang. Victors. Spoils. You know the routine. It's only a war crime if you lose.
True, but it is too bad for
Submitted by tpx on Thu Oct. 15, 2009 1:38 PM PDT.
True, but it is too bad for the American people, who need a humiliating defeat in order to create a socially responsible modern state like the Germans and Japanese have.
Never not puppets
Submitted by Altoid (not verified) on Thu Oct. 15, 2009 11:52 AM PDT.
Easy to overlook: anyone who's supported by invading/occupying forces is a puppet. It doesn't matter if they start out with 98% domestic support. Opposition eventually uses the easiest line of attack, which is to accuse whoever's running the government of being a puppet. Because they depend on outside support, the charge is true. This has nothing to do with personalities or actual performance; it's built-in and structural.
Whatever government is thrown up in Afghanistan, no matter how broad its support at the start, if it relies on US forces to stay in power it's going to end up being a foreign puppet. Foreigners eventually leave places that are far from their home, because they have much less at stake than the people who live there.
That's the underlying story of the end of the British empire, the end of the French empire, our withdrawal from the Philippines, and Vietnam. All occupied countries know this. That's why they draw these wars out and make them long and expensive-- the occupying country can't stand the expense and decides to go home.
That's why Afghanistan is Vietnam 2.0. It always was.
